Kenneth Klein v. Floranada Warehouse and Storage, Inc., No. 16-11342 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-11342 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-11342 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60032-WPD KENNETH KLEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 26, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Klein is a former employee of Floranada Warehouse and Storage (Floranada). He brought suit against Floranada seeking damages for alleged Case: 16-11342 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 2 of 2 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Klein alleged that Floranada failed to pay him overtime pay at time-and-a-half for hours he worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). A jury decided in favor of Floranada, finding that Klein was properly paid and was not due any overtime compensation (beyond the commissions or non-discretionary bonus payments for which Klein was partially granted summary judgment). On appeal, Klein challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We have reviewed and considered the briefs and the record, and we have drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Floranada, the nonmoving party. See Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2004). There was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. In reaching that conclusion, we find no merit to Klein’s argument that his pay structure emanated from a vain attempt to establish a Belo agreement. 1 Therefore, we conclude that the motions for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict were properly denied. The decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED. 1 Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 62 S. Ct. 1223 (1942). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
